"Meet The Press" sent out a press release this week boasting that last weekend attracted 3.705 million viewers & was it's best in it's ratings this year beating the competition - 51% more than CBS "Face the Nation,70% lead over ABC This Week, and a 237% advantage over Fox News Sunday.

It 's true. BTW, MTP's best ratings a year before was 4.62 million.

Another thing, David Gregory pulled a Russert-lite on Friday Hardball with Condi Rice. Condi just crushed him with smile.

More likely they will waste oxygen talking about this silly cease fire resolution running around the UN. I have to give John Bolton credit, he is good at focusing the rest of the world on things that will NOT stop Israel from doing the job that needs to be done!

11
posted on 08/06/2006 5:21:14 AM PDT
by hunter112
(Total victory at home and in the Middle East!)

Gary Gallagher is the University of Virginia Professor in the History of the American Civil War. His most recent book is, The Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864. Professor Gallagher has written or edited 21 books on the Civil War including, Leaders of the Lost Cause: New Perspectives on the Confederate High Command (2004), Lee and His Army in Confederate History (2001), The Lost Cause and Civil War History (2000), Lee and His Generals in War and Memory (1998), The Confederate War (1997), Jubal A. Early, the Lost Cause, and Civil War History: A Persistent Legacy (1995) and Fighting for the Confederacy: The Personal Recollections of General Edward Porter Alexander (1989). Professor Gallagher has given a 48-part lecture series for the Teaching Company on the Civil War,and has appeared in many documentaries about the conflict.The beginning and end of this live program may be earlier or later than the scheduled times.

Now, when will they be going to apologize for wrongly reporting the Labanon death toll? "earlier reports said" doesn't cut it. Where were that earlier reports coming from? Associated Press is nothing but the whole bunch of MSM funded fools spreading anti-American, BDS stories.

For the Newt Fans, Here is the Military line up for "World War III". Kind of makes it clear why that argument isn't working.

Hypothetical Military Match Up. USA vrs the China/Iran/Syrian Axis. I will even add China as a potential Axis member.

Even if you multiply the CIA facts by a factor of the 5 on the absurd notion that they are successfully "hiding" their real military from us, the Iran/Syria Axis comes NO where near the US ALONE in Military power.

I am not even going to bother putting Israel, Japan, South Korea, India and the NATO countries on our side. The scale all ready tips so heavily to the US there is no reason to pile on.

This is JUST a comparison between the US and the Iran/Syrian Axis. For fun I will include Egypt and the Saudis as part of the Iran/Syrian Axis to show how absurd the notion is that they could ever fight a Conventional Military Campaign against us

Military branches: Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard; note - Coast Guard administered in peacetime by the Department of Homeland Security, but in wartime reports to the Department of the Navy

Military service age and obligation: 18 years of age; 17 years of age with written parental consent (2006)

Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 67,742,879 females age 18-49: 67,070,144 (2005 est.)

Military service age and obligation: 18 years of age for compulsory military service; 16 years of age for volunteers; soldiers as young as 9 were recruited extensively during the Iran-Iraq War; conscript service obligation - 18 months (2004)

Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 18,319,545 females age 18-49: 17,541,037 (2005 est.)

Military service age and obligation: 18 years of age for compulsory military service; conscript service obligation - 30 months (18 months in the Syrian Arab Navy); women are not conscripted but may volunteer to serve (2004)

Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 4,356,413 females age 18-49: 4,123,339 (2005 est.)

Military service age and obligation: 18-22 years of age for compulsory military service, with 24-month service obligation; no minimum age for voluntary service (all officers are volunteers); 17 years of age for women who meet requirements for specific military jobs (2004)

Manpower available for military service: males age 18-49: 342,956,265 females age 18-49: 324,701,244 (2005 est.)

Yes and no. Yes if Israel keeps hammering the Hezzies and the delay does not result in any "concessions" to the Hezzie by the limp wrist Europeans. As long as the end game looks something like this the Israelis win in Lebannon. The thing to watch for is any "compromise" deals being offered There is a great deal of misplaced angst in Conservative circles about the the Israeli operations in Lebanon. In the first days of the war, Ralph Peters was all ready moaning, ISRAEL is losing this war. For a lifelong Israel supporter, that's a painful thing to write  This week Charles Krauthammer exclaimed Olmerts search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well To quote Lady Thatcher, This is no time to go wobbly Conservatives! The problem with these admiribable mens analyses is they are trying to force a Conventional Warfare paradigm onto an Asymmetrical warfare problem. That simply will not work. Start with our Revolution, Napoleon in Spain, Spain in South American, the US in Vietnam, Various European powers all over the world, the Nazis in Eastern Europe, the French then the Americans in Vietnam, the Russians in Afghanistan. A Conventional Warfare doctrine applied to an Asymmetrical problem always ends in the eventual bloody defeat for the Conventional Force. Think of Israel as a boxer punching a sand bag. No matter how hard they hit, they cannot hold their fist to the bag forever. Thus as soon as they pull their fist back the weight of the sand forces the bag back to the same old shape. This time Israel, with the backing of the Bush Administration, is trying to find a way to empty the sand OUT of the bag so that when Israel's fist is removed, the bag does not simply revert to the same old form. It's not as dramatic or made for TV sexy but it DOES have the virtue of possible achieving a workable longer-term strategic change for Israel. Israel is going for the long game, a solution to a decade long cancer NOT a drama queen ego feeding headline grabbing military blitz. It would be utterly stupid for Israel to settle for just pruning back Hizbolla when they could possible completely uproots it. All the various armchair Patton's plans would accomplish is a lot of dead Jews for a short term "Quick fix". Hizbolla would simply bleed the Israelis while pulling back into sanctuary areas in Syria and northern Lebanon. Then when the Israelis could no longer stand the blood and treasure long term occupation was costing them, Hizbolla would simply flow back into the same positions they hold now. And in a few years from now the Israelis would face the same crises in Lebanon Like the US in Iraq, Israel seems to be trying for a long term FIX that uproots Hizbolla and creates a viable Lebanese Govt that can police its own territory. That is why the Israelis are interested in a NATO force to do in Lebanon what it is currently doing in Afghanistan. The UN has showed it simply is too corrupt and ineffective to manage peacekeeping duties. Israel, and the world, need a force that can keep out the Terrorists while the Lebanese build a viable nation-state that can provide long term stability. Thus the Israel and the US should be looking with interest to the French. The French are the ideal choice because of their history with Lebanon. They have good troops with lots of peace keeping experience (Its their politics that are messed up, not their military) Being Lefties the Media will pretty much ignore the head cracking they need to do as peace keepers. They do not trigger the knee jerk hysteria British, American or Jewish troops would in the Arabs. For domestic consumption the French can spin this mission as one to protect the Muslims " stopping" the Israelis. France does not have any where near the existing military commitments that the US and Britain do so have the forces available to take this one. With France heading the mission Germany, Spain and the other reluctant nervous nellies among the old Europe nations would have political coverage to get involved. The Israelis get a Neutral Zone and make one front in the WOT someone else's headache. It sends a message to Syria and Iran that the EU is not divided on controlling their terrorists proxy forces and adds pressure on Tehran to make a deal on the nuclear issue since they are diplomatically isolated. It would be also be impossible for domestic political reasons for the French to let the mission fail. In face of the success we are having in Afghanistan and Iraq, France needs to prove itself a serious world player. This mission thus would be seen as a test of Frances Pan Europeanism. The $64 billion question is will the French do it? "Israel's Lost Moment" Washington Post Friday, August 4, 2006; By http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080301258.html CAN ISRAEL WIN? New York Post July 22, 2206. By Ralph Peters http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/can_israel_win__opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

David Gregory pulled a Russert-lite on Friday Hardball with Condi Rice. Condi just crushed him with smile.

@@@@@

RealClearPolitics has a link to the Gregory-Rice interview. It reads very well. Since the reader does not have to look at the Gregory body language, they are not offensive but informative. Dr Rice explained what is happening in terms simple enough for him to understand.

28
posted on 08/06/2006 5:42:48 AM PDT
by maica
(Creating human shields is a war crime. It is also a Hezbollah specialty.-- Charles Krauthammer)

UGGG! Note to self, "It's called Preview stupid"! Here this is better.

Yes and no. Yes if Israel keeps hammering the Hezzies and the delay does not result in any "concessions" to the Hezzie by the limp wrist Europeans. As long as the end game looks something like this the Israelis win in Lebannon. The thing to watch for is any "compromise" deals being offered

There is a great deal of misplaced angst in Conservative circles about the the Israeli operations in Lebanon. In the first days of the war, Ralph Peters was all ready moaning, ISRAEL is losing this war. For a lifelong Israel supporter, that's a painful thing to write  This week Charles Krauthammer exclaimed Olmerts search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well To quote Lady Thatcher, This is no time to go wobbly Conservatives!

The problem with these admiribable mens analyses is they are trying to force a Conventional Warfare paradigm onto an Asymmetrical warfare problem. That simply will not work.

Start with our Revolution, Napoleon in Spain, Spain in South American, the US in Vietnam, Various European powers all over the world, the Nazis in Eastern Europe, the French then the Americans in Vietnam, the Russians in Afghanistan. A Conventional Warfare doctrine applied to an Asymmetrical problem always ends in the eventual bloody defeat for the Conventional Force.

Think of Israel as a boxer punching a sand bag. No matter how hard they hit, they cannot hold their fist to the bag forever. Thus as soon as they pull their fist back the weight of the sand forces the bag back to the same old shape. This time Israel, with the backing of the Bush Administration, is trying to find a way to empty the sand OUT of the bag so that when Israel's fist is removed, the bag does not simply revert to the same old form.

It's not as dramatic or made for TV sexy but it DOES have the virtue of possible achieving a workable longer-term strategic change for Israel. Israel is going for the long game, a solution to a decade long cancer NOT a drama queen ego feeding headline grabbing military blitz. It would be utterly stupid for Israel to settle for just pruning back Hizbolla when they could possible completely uproots it.

All the various armchair Patton's plans would accomplish is a lot of dead Jews for a short term "Quick fix". Hizbolla would simply bleed the Israelis while pulling back into sanctuary areas in Syria and northern Lebanon. Then when the Israelis could no longer stand the blood and treasure long term occupation was costing them, Hizbolla would simply flow back into the same positions they hold now. And in a few years from now the Israelis would face the same crises in Lebanon.

Like the US in Iraq, Israel seems to be trying for a long term FIX that uproots Hizbolla and creates a viable Lebanese Govt that can police its own territory. That is why the Israelis are interested in a NATO force to do in Lebanon what it is currently doing in Afghanistan. The UN has showed it simply is too corrupt and ineffective to manage peacekeeping duties. Israel, and the world, need a force that can keep out the Terrorists while the Lebanese build a viable nation-state that can provide long term stability. Thus the Israel and the US should be looking with interest to the French.

The French are the ideal choice because of their history with Lebanon. They have good troops with lots of peace keeping experience (Its their politics that are messed up, not their military) Being Lefties the Media will pretty much ignore the head cracking they need to do as peace keepers. They do not trigger the knee jerk hysteria British, American or Jewish troops would in the Arabs. For domestic consumption the French can spin this mission as one to protect the Muslims " stopping" the Israelis. France does not have any where near the existing military commitments that the US and Britain do so have the forces available to take this one. With France heading the mission Germany, Spain and the other reluctant nervous nellies among the old Europe nations would have political coverage to get involved. The Israelis get a Neutral Zone and make one front in the WOT someone else's headache. It sends a message to Syria and Iran that the EU is not divided on controlling their terrorists proxy forces and adds pressure on Tehran to make a deal on the nuclear issue since they are diplomatically isolated. It would be also be impossible for domestic political reasons for the French to let the mission fail. In face of the success we are having in Afghanistan and Iraq, France needs to prove itself a serious world player. This mission thus would be seen as a test of France's Pan European vision.

The $64 billion question is will the French do it?

"Israel's Lost Moment" Washington Post Friday, August 4, 2006; By http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080301258.html CAN ISRAEL WIN? New York Post July 22, 2206. By Ralph Peters http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/can_israel_win__opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

Let's hope that no fires break out in CT on primary day because firefighters are taking the day off to ferry voters to the polls, and union members are manning the phones to get out the vote for Lieberman.

42
posted on 08/06/2006 5:56:11 AM PDT
by Carolinamom
(Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue. ---Barry Goldwater)

Kabar was a perfect winner. While we were all worrying that Israel was giving up, he stood calmly and stated the reasons it was not so. Later in the week, I listed to Rush Limbaugh state that on last weekend, even he was feeling worried about it, only to see the higher strateegery Isreal was building on. Kabar, you out geniused Rush!!!!!

Phsstpok is just, as I said before, a Jedi Master on the Council. What more needs to be said? The man should be on Fox News pontificating. He'd be far better than most of them.

For myself, I was reading my Sunday paper's editorials (the Montgomery Advertiser, a Gannet rag that cannot be quoted here) and found a letter there so vicious, so full of BDS, it was incredible! (Read it yourself: LINK) This person was blaming all the terrorism in the world on Bush, and even the current Hezbollah war. He ticked off all the moonbat talking points, complaining that Bush/Cheney started this horrible war 5 years ago...yada, yada, yada. But the writer left out, completely, 9/11. Yes, I thought, people have truly forgotten.

I disagree OK he with the administration over the WOT but the rest of his voting is very much with the democrates and the fact that there is this spilt over the WOT makes good television and an ideal guest for Sunday morning or evening TV.

I am waiting to see both shows, but I bet that the questioning, especially from Russert, will show a bias for Lieberman. I have listened to Lanny Davis defend old Joe on several local radio shows. He is very effective and will probably smack down the Lamont supporter. I watched the Lieberman-Lamont debate and thought that Lieberman won it.

Giving Lieberman and his suppporters this platform can only help Lieberman.

Point taken, snugs. BUt that post has nothing to do with politics. Besides, Mineta is not a conservative either. Just a goodwill gesture to give A post to a dem. And, Governor gets to appoint a potential republican too for the senate.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.